I suppose this means that if someone habituates their affectations , they are genuine, and if someone overcomes their fears , its disingenuous. — Stosh
I'm thinking I pointed out a real flaw in the idea that one is automatically genuine if they just make no effort to be genuine. — Stosh
Consider a handshake. What's going on when there's genuineness there? — Mongrel
I like this.The key to being genuine is being honest!
I spoke in the inverse to shed light on from that angle , since I think that in this case, the linkage of A to B is really the same as linking B to A.Well I agree, and that is not what I said, but rather the inverse, that if one makes an effort to be be genuine one is automatically not. But the implicit thrust of my comment is that genuineness is a contradictory and thus inappropriate goal. Most of us are genuinely flawed, if not actively unpleasant and antisocial, and for such, being genuine is the last thing we should seek. — unenlightened
The problem there is that there is no such "you". There is an accumulated bundle of habits with certain tendencies, and also a capacity for creative unpredictability. But the idea of there being some essential self - a sensing Cartesian soul - as the fixed centre is itself a psychological construct.
So sure, we wear social masks. And they become as much a sign of who we are to "ourselves" as they present a sign of who we are for others to interpret.
.
Well, I know what you're saying, in common parlance there is the idea that things might be real or unreal. But you get into a quagmire ,which has already been touched on.,one either extends their hand or doesn't, you cant really do that , but not do that , at the same time. The entirety of a persons character includes all the considerations which played a part in extending ones hand, and the summary decision was to do it .↪Stosh it could be. Where I come from it's part of commonplace greetings...usually between people meeting for the first time. Genuine means real...as opposed to fake. A greeting that lacks warmth is in some way false or fake. Just going through the motions...ya know? — Mongrel
There're values, deeply held beliefs, feelings. Acting / living / habituating oneself in accord with those -and being unafraid to express one's 'creative unpredictability' — aporiap
But acting in this fashion is learnt behaviour. So "authenticity" is another social script.
I think there's a disconnect between individualism and authenticity. One can value communal living or strongly identify with some over-arching socio-cultural label and work to align with the norms and pressures of that. I think -if that's what one feels aligned to- then that counts as living authentically.And wouldn't you say that a problem in modern society is the very pressure it creates to live up to rather extreme standards of individualism?
I think it's complicated. We're embedded in a web of relations-- I've got school commitments, exams to complete, papers to finish, classes to attend; I've got social commitments-- people to see, places to go, events to attend; I've got a whole historical momentum built from my past interactions -- close friends, self-expectations, family-expectations, images and ideals of who I am and how I typically act. Generally, it feels more comfortable-stable to stay in that web because it's already established. But that web doesn't necessarily have to align with what's valued by the person in the centre. And so while there might be a more stable; more comfortable way of being, it takes energy and emotional untangling to change that. I feel like that fear and reluctance and the like comes from that. But ultimately there can be more 'stable' states that one can be in.If you are urging the need to be "unafraid" of something, that should be your clue as to what most people might have a deep seated natural inclination to avoid doing - actually standing apart from the herd.
Practicality, social commitments, fears, inner tensions can hinder that impulse but psycho-behavioral coherence doesn't seem like something learnt. — aporiap
I think there's a disconnect between individualism and authenticity. One can value communal living or strongly identify with some over-arching socio-cultural label and work to align with the norms and pressures of that. I think -if that's what one feels aligned to- then that counts as living authentically. — aporiap
But that web doesn't necessarily have to align with what's valued by the person in the centre. And so while there might be a more stable; more comfortable way of being, it takes energy and emotional untangling to change that. I feel like that fear and reluctance and the like comes from that. — aporiap
But ultimately there can be more 'stable' states that one can be in. — aporiap
So I think of authenticity as being rooted in something more innate/biological. We tend towards stability. Stability involves inner coherence. Inner coherence for a human involves alignment of action with values or strongly-held beliefs. — aporiap
Watched clocks never boil — wuliheron
Authenticity is when any distinctions between our hearts and brains,
No longer matter anymore because harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Knowing without knowing the only thing we can know is but nothing,
Being incapable of ever straying far from the path lost and all alone! — wuliheron
For us to be all that we can be each heart must first be free!
For us to be all we can be each must free their loving hearts!
Set your heart free, and it will reward the favor many times!
Set your heart free if you want, to experience actual freedom! — wuliheron
Any reputation is like a fire that can be arduous to rebuild! — wuliheron
MonfortS26
92
I believe that the key to being genuine in life lies in your intuition. Intuition is the core of who we are as a person and everything else is just whatever our intuition chooses to perceive us to be. The way to live in the present is to be in touch with your intuition.
Anyone disagree? — MonfortS26
How do you define cultural? I feel we're as much 'physio-chemical' as we are 'cultural' as we are 'biological'. The biological aspect involves the activity of the brain, other parts of the CNS, other parts of the body. It's us understood in terms of parts that can mediate biological functions (surviving, digesting, eating). The physio-chemical aspect involves the mechanics of motion, fluid flow, transfer and storage of energy. The cultural aspect involves values, norms, self and other identities, groups, social institutions and structures..Well, given that we are cultural creatures, yes "psycho-behavioral coherence" is learnt behaviour. We do have to discover a balance in terms of what we are neuro-biologically and psycho-socially.
To be psychologically coherent with US culture is very different from being different with Indonesian culture, say. And even within these countries there are huge local variations in approved cultural style.
You can be authentic as an individual because you hold a unique set of values. No two people will hold all of the same values. And there are many ways you can act out those values. So the unique, creative way you 'be' yourself (and I think what defines that self is -at least- partly rooted in your values) is what grounds individual authenticity..That's fine if "authentic" is defined at the sociocultural level.
So one could indeed be authentically "Bostonian" or "Javanese" because there is actually a cultural recipe made explicit in local art, folklore, language, etc.
It is hard to be authentic as an individual as what do you ground that on - your distinctive neuro-genetics?
I don't think it's nearly impossible to live up to! It's difficult to do it when faced with social pressure, but it's not impossible.So I would agree that "authenticity" only applies qua cultural norms. And "being true to yourself" has become just such a meme - but paradoxically, one pretty much impossible to live up to literally and thus the source of a lot of modern angst.
The more I read you the less I feel you have any affinity for existentialists.. Heidegger, sartre.. lol.I agree that change is difficult - when it is viewed as radical rather than incremental. But I don't think we have to say that it is fear that stands in the way of changing habits. Habits just are hard to change by definition. That is their natural psychological status.
So what changes habits is not overcoming fears but learning the skill of mindful attention. You have to recognise that what you are doing is a habit. Then you can figure out an incremental path that could achieve the learning of a change.
So what you are expressing is the standard propaganda of modern individualist culture - the "you can be anything you want" school of thought. And part of that standard message is "only your fears stand in your way".
This is compromising! I think we certainly have to balance -- but that balance would need to take into account our own interests and values. I don't believe you can live comfortably with yourself while acting in ways that are in contradiction with your own strongly held values. The cognitive dissonance would be too much. And when I say values I don't necessarily mean moral norms. I mean it in a more 'compartmentalized' way. I'd imagine everyone has 'career interests' 'foods they like' 'educational subjects or topics they like', etc. Valuing involves 'liking', 'preferring', so it involves a judgement.Authenticity - properly understood - is about achieving personal balance in the socio-cultural arenas we all have to play in.
Well it's a complicated question. Ultimately I don't think there's this 'one' macro-culture, there are a variety of small micro-cultures-- where people of -at least- partially overlapping interests come together and interact. Clearly in that small grouping there is no transcending of socio-cultural limits. What I'm trying to say is that living in a more 'stable state' doesn't necessarily mean you have to transcend sociocultural limits. It just means you have to find a niche/web-of-relations that better aligns with your own values.But again the question is whether the goal should be to transcend sociocultural limits or to completely commit to them?
So the changing course is one thing. The real question is what is the right course? And I don't see aiming for sociocultural transcendence is likely to be a recipe for personal stability. I'm not sure there is much psychological evidence for that. (Heck, I know that the opposite is true in fact.)
You can be authentic as an individual because you hold a unique set of values. No two people will hold all of the same values. — aporiap
I think striving to act in accord with what you truly, viscerally feel or believe is part of authenticity as well. — aporiap
If a person asks your opinion on how they are performing or how they are dressed or some current event or other subject-matter, you respond with what you honestly feel is correct or true. You don't modify it because your opinion may be offensive or controversial, etc. — aporiap
This is compromising! I think we certainly have to balance -- but that balance would need to take into account our own interests and values. — aporiap
What I'm trying to say is that living in a more 'stable state' doesn't necessarily mean you have to transcend sociocultural limits. It just means you have to find a niche/web-of-relations that better aligns with your own values. — aporiap
Striking a balance may involve doing what you enjoy doing in certain contexts (i.e. within the context of a job or career), but that doesn't mean you're sacrificing your interests for the sake of something else. — aporiap
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.